Dr. Retard

Common sense says there's a moral difference between:

(1) someone who does evil, as part of an evil culture-wide social system, with the support and encouragement of his fellows, and

(2) someone who does the same evil, where his society condemns the behavior, and the wrongdoer runs against the sensibilities of his fellows.

The first person is doing wrong, for sure, but it seems he's not as bad as the second person, because it's difficult for humans to fight peer pressure. Whereas the second person is going 'out of his way' to do wrong.

More generally, you can morally appraise some behavior as evil, and yet make quite diverse moral judgments about the various individuals who engage in the behavior, based on their motives, their backgrounds, their surroundings, etc.

Pyrrho

First, let me define a couple of my terms, and then on with my comments:

Many ethical principles are based upon other ethical principles. For example, one might base the principle that it is wrong to lie on the principle that each person has moral worth, and consequently deserves to be told the truth. The most basic or fundamental principle(s) upon which all other principles are based is called an “ultimate principle.” All principles that are not ultimate principles are called “secondary principles.”

Two ideas that that people often confuse with each other:
1. Sociological Relativism, the doctrine that different societies, in fact, have different ultimate principles.
2. Ethical Relativism, the doctrine that if different societies have different ultimate principles, then they are all equally right.

It is fairly uncontroversial that different societies have different secondary principles, though it is far less clear that they have different ultimate principles. (It may be helpful to think about examples like this: Every culture has prohibitions on random murders.)

Ethical Absolutism is the doctrine that there is one correct ultimate principle or one set of correct ultimate principles.


I think it may be useful to consider this: If ethical relativism is correct and it is right to go along with the values of one's society, then the ONLY reason it would be wrong to have slaves here and now is because our society forbids it. And, further, it would make no sense to speak of any "progress" in morals (or "cultural growth", as you put it), as to do so would involve imposing external values on the different time periods, which the position specifically prohibits. There are many people who call themselves "ethical relativists" who do not consistently hold their claimed position. Consider, for example, the possibility of society changing again, and slavery becoming acceptable again. If you are a consistent ethical relativist, then you have no basis to say that such an arrangement would be wrong. And it would mean that no one would ever have any inherent rights, of any kind, because your rights would be culturally defined. And, as you aptly point out, it would mean that people like Martin Luther King, Gandhi, etc. were all criminals, though not common criminals—they were all misguided in their notions of right and wrong (since they were ethical absolutists, which can be known by their rejection of society's norms), and attempted to impose their wills upon society (with some degree of success).

As for your meat eating example, if you are going to be consistent in your absolutism, insofar as you are interested in determining correct ethical principles, you should not concern yourself with what is now regarded as right or wrong, nor whether it will be regarded as right or wrong in the future. Such things are irrelevant to what really is right and wrong. You should examine the thing itself to see if it really is right or wrong.

Now, of course, since you have not told us what type of ethical absolutist you are, I cannot tell you exactly how you will determine that any particular principle is correct. Since you have left the door open to any suggestion, I recommend taking a look at David Hume's Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, which is fascinating reading, particularly toward the end.

You state:

Almost everyone IS immoral. Deal with it.